Needing Help to Disprove an Atheist Claim about the Big Bang

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That’s a depressing thing to say.

Well, I suppose I wouldn’t abandon all science. I would have to believe that something has monkey-wrenched Astronomy.

Just think about it, though. If there’s an end result of creation that ends it and remakes it for a perpetual existence, why create a universe stuck in cycles of birth and rebirth forever? Why destroy all that exists, just for it to be made again?

Luckily, I don’t think we’ll ever see that day come.

But you would have painted yourself into a corner when it’s not necessary.

How on earth can we arive at a point where, if a cyclical universe was shown to be the way we came to be, you would say that that denies God and I would say no, He could still exist.

How could a Christian and an atheist have opposing views on the existence of God?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

God could still exist, but I don’t believe the Catholic God could. The idea of a finite end doesn’t match that to me. Maybe I just misunderstand Catholicism and the teaching on God’s traits?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That’s a depressing thing to say.

Well, I suppose I wouldn’t abandon all science. I would have to believe that something has monkey-wrenched Astronomy.

Just think about it, though. If there’s an end result of creation that ends it and remakes it for a perpetual existence, why create a universe stuck in cycles of birth and rebirth forever? Why destroy all that exists, just for it to be made again?

I think the answer you’re looking for is: ‘Who can know the mind of God’. Not ‘Wouldn’t this prove He doesn’t exist?’

 

[Freddy]

Yes, they do. Trying to claim that gravity and the quantum fluctuations in the vacuum could create the universe, when the quantum fluctuations and curvature of the vacuum is itself part of the universe.

And that denies God’s existence? What rubbish.

 

[Freddy]

God could still exist, but I don’t believe the Catholic God could. The idea of a finite end doesn’t match that to me. Maybe I just misunderstand Catholicism and the teaching on God’s traits?

Hey, let’s just agree that we disagree on what Penrose proposes. I don’t want to be accused of sowing seeds of doubt. I’m saying that it doesn’t affect one’s belief either way. But if you think it might then I’m not going to push the matter. Let’s just leave it at that.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I’m fine with you challenging it! My problems with Penrose’s proposal do not come from faith, just to be perfectly clear. They’re purely scientific in nature.

 

[Freddy]

I’m fine with you challenging it! My problems with Penrose’s proposal do not come from faith, just to be perfectly clear. They’re purely scientific in nature.

Then stop associating God’s existence with it.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Fair enough.

 

[Wesrock]

A cyclical universe doesn’t provide sufficient explanation, for we still end up in a situation for why there should be such a system at all. People are getting caught up in needing a beginning, in claiming there needs to be a finite series of accidental causes (a la Kalam Cosmollgical Argument, though if the KCA is true it rules out the possibility of an infinitely enduring system (cyclical or linear) altogether. But no matter). That’s not an angle we need take at all.

We’ve had arguments for why an infinitely enduring universe/system without beginning cannot exist independently for millennia. Why start trying to suppose that now?

 

[Juvenal]

Penrose’s proposal means that mankind comes to exist every single cycle because the laws of the universe don’t change. That also doesn’t square up with my understanding.

That’s not a consequence of Penrose’s proposal, which makes no assumptions at all about the likelihood of any evolutionary process repeating, let alone toward anything analogous to mankind.

 

[Freddy]

A cyclical universe doesn’t provide sufficient explanation, for we still end up in a situation for why there should be such a system at all.

That’s for theologians and philosophers. Not scientists.

If you are suggesting that perhaps some of the arguments for God do not work with a cyclical universe and it is shown to be valid, then you have three choices. Abandon God, abandon science or abandon any attempt to correlate the two.

Might I suggest the third.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

My firm belief is that evolution is not random in the most pedantic sense. As such, that evolution would repeat the same way every time.

 

[CoffeeCatholic]

You don’t have to ‘disprove’ a random (and strange) theory.

 

[Juvenal]

My firm belief is that evolution is not random in the most pedantic sense. As such, that evolution would repeat the same way every time.

Science isn’t amenable to firm beliefs, in my experience. Nor am I aware of any scientist who believes evolution is deterministic. Believe what you like, but please don’t call this position scientific, because it’s not.

 

[stoplooklisten]

stoplooklisten:

Freddy:

I simply say that one shouldn’t dismiss out of hand something that someone that smart says.

Jesus Christ was pretty smart. The Apostles Peter and Paul and James John were pretty smart. You would do well to consider more what they say. .

You mean what someone said he said. That’s more accurate.

Christianity started with over 500 witnesses to the resurrected Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:6). Jesus had Twelve Apostles who (after Judas was replaced) became the first 12 bishops. An unbroken succession of bishops and other Christians has continued since Jesus ascended into heaven. Popes for the first three hundred years were all martyred. Many Christians in the first 3 centuries of the Church (and afterwards) have been martyred. We have the writings of more than 80 “Early Church Fathers” from those first three centuries. We have the Colosseum and catacombs in Rome as evidence of the sacrifices of those early Christians. People don’t make such sacrifices without good reason. Acknowledgment of early Christian history is recommended rather than skepticism, unbelief and denial. May Almighty God bless you.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

stoplooklisten:

Freddy:

I simply say that one shouldn’t dismiss out of hand something that someone that smart says.

Jesus Christ was pretty smart. The Apostles Peter and Paul and James John were pretty smart. You would do well to consider more what they say. .

You mean what someone said he said. That’s more accurate.

Christianity started with over 500 witnesses to the resurrected Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:6).

No. There is one line by Paul where he says that there were 500 witnesses. And he wrote that line decades after the event in Ephesus, which is nearly 2,000 kms from Jerusalem. Did he know there were 500? Did someone else tell him? Where did the number come from?

Believe it if you will. But it’s not a fact. It’s hearsay.

 

[Annie]

Well, I think @HarryStotle answered this way better than I possibly could, especially since my reason for believing in God comes from the theory of evolution, so I will bow out

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

A cyclical universe doesn’t provide sufficient explanation, for we still end up in a situation for why there should be such a system at all.

That’s for theologians and philosophers. Not scientists.

If you are suggesting that perhaps some of the arguments for God do not work with a cyclical universe and it is shown to be valid, then you have three choices. Abandon God, abandon science or abandon any attempt to correlate the two.

Might I suggest the third.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is one that is based on argument that an infinite regress in accidental events is impossible. If successful it shows that there was a first beginning at some point, and would rule out the notion of any infinite cycle.

However, the KCA is not an argument I favor or defend. And I have in mind plenty that make no claim, either at the start or end, as to whether there was a first beginning.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Wesrock:

A cyclical universe doesn’t provide sufficient explanation, for we still end up in a situation for why there should be such a system at all.

That’s for theologians and philosophers. Not scientists.

If you are suggesting that perhaps some of the arguments for God do not work with a cyclical universe and it is shown to be valid, then you have three choices. Abandon God, abandon science or abandon any attempt to correlate the two.

Might I suggest the third.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is one that is based on argument that an infinite regress in accidental events is impossible. If successful it shows that there was a first beginning at some point, and would rule out the notion of any infinite cycle.

And vica versa of course.

 

[HarryStotle]

Best thing to do is pray for your friend. Dont engage in conversation that just goes round and round. Just keep believing in God. That is all that matters.

Ah, yes. Don’t engage in oscillating cyclical conversations about oscillating cyclical universes. You will find yourself arguing in a circle.